1985 (3) TMI 12 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Calculation of the period of default under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act.
3. Determination of reasonable cause for delay in filing the return.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:

The key question was whether the proviso to section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, which allows an extension for filing the wealth-tax return, was applicable in this case. The proviso, introduced by section 26 of the Finance Act, 1970, effective from April 1, 1970, states that if the income-tax return could be filed by September 30, 1969, then the penalty for default would be for four months only. The court examined whether this proviso, being procedural, could apply retrospectively to the return filed on February 23, 1970, which was due on June 30, 1969. It was concluded that the proviso could not apply retrospectively to defaults that occurred before its enactment.

2. Calculation of the period of default under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act:

The court had to determine the correct period of default for imposing a penalty under section 18(1)(a). The Wealth-tax Officer initially calculated a seven-month delay, while the Appellate Tribunal reduced it to four months, citing the proviso to section 14(1). The court held that the law applicable for calculating the penalty is the one in force on the due date of the return, i.e., June 30, 1969. Since the proviso came into effect only on April 1, 1970, it could not be applied to extend the period for filing the return that was due before this date. Therefore, the correct period of default was seven months.

3. Determination of reasonable cause for delay in filing the return:

The assessee argued that the delay in filing the return was due to the late finalization of the firm's accounts, which was his main wealth. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted this as a reasonable cause and canceled the penalty. However, the Tribunal found no reasonable cause, stating that the assessee, being an active partner, was responsible for filing the firm's return on time. The court upheld the Tribunal's view, emphasizing that the assessee's failure to file the return on time constituted culpable negligence and contumacious conduct. The court concluded that there was no reasonable cause for the delay.

Conclusion:

The court held that the Tribunal was not justified in applying the proviso to section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act and in holding that the default under section 18(1)(a) was for a period of four months only. The penalty should be calculated for a default period of seven months from June 30, 1969. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, and against the assessee. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.